The Senate has passed the Second Chance Act, already approved by the House, intended to provide the crucial assistance for prisoners to re-enter society and move on to a productive life. It is described in a synopsis of the law from a press release by the Council of State Governments:
The Second Chance Act includes key elements of President Bush’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative, announced in the 2004 State of the Union address, which provides for community and faith-based organizations to deliver mentoring and transitional services. The bill will also help connect people released from prison and jail to mental health and substance abuse treatment, expand job training and placement services, and facilitate transitional housing and case management services.
There is little question that this law is long overdue, given the desperate need for services to reduce recidivism, educate, train, integrate and provide health and addiction services for those leaving prison. Yes, it’s unfortunate that prison doesn’t do more, a lot more, to prepare inmates for their release, but nobody likes to pay much attention to what happens inside prisons since they hate those people anyway.
But when they come out, people care a little because their recidivism impacts others. It’s not to be fair or nice to prisoners, but to keep those mutts from committing crimes against good people. There will be those who complain that “those people” get better services than they do, which is always a great argument for guaranteeing massive failure of the criminal justice system. If you don’t like recidivism, then something has to be done to give former prisoners a means to reintegrate. Pick your poison.
[Side Note: The bill was held up by that paragon of virtue, Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions who put a block on the bill , perhaps waiting to see who would provide the largest contribution to his re-election war chest. This would be the same Jeff Sessions who sold himself to commercial banks in the DataTreasury amendment scandal.]
So this is a good start. The problem with good starts, however, is that everybody tends to pat themselves on the back for doing such a great thing and walk away from the grave. It’s a start, but only a start.
“The Second Chance Act will provide an opportunity for realistic rehabilitation for the more than 650,000 inmates who return to their communities each year,” said Senator Specter. “The bill’s focus on education, job training, and substance abuse treatment is essential to decreasing the nationwide recidivism rate of 66 percent.”
That’s a lot of people. It’s going to require a lot of resources to provide meaningful help “more than 650,000” re-entering inmates, and this comes at a time when the economy has turned south, “good, law-abiding” people are struggling and nobody wants to spend their hard-earned tax dollars on criminals.
A February 2007 report from The Pew Charitable Trusts stated that if federal, state, and local policies and practices do not change, taxpayers are expected to pay as much as $27.5 billion on prisons alone from 2007 to 2011 on top of current corrections spending.
That’s the catch. The cost of crime, the cost of investigation, arrest and prosecution, the cost of punishment, will far exceed the cost of reintegration. Will Congress have the will to do the job right? Will the public have the foresight to spend today to save tomorrow? We have a long history of being short-sighted when it comes to criminal issues.
There’s one additional facet worthy of mention, and that is the involvement and reliance on “faith-based” organizations for the delivery of these services. Grits posted about his support for the Second Chance Act, and I wondered how he felt about the faith-based component. In particular, I was curious whether concerns about religious involvement changed from region to region, since Grits is down in Texas, which seems to have some unusual views on non-Christian religions. It’s not that are biased, but that it is viewed as benign because there’s nothing about “faith-based” organizations that seem problematic when you’re in the religious majority.
Not surprisingly, this facet of the law raised no cackles. Perhaps this would be different if, say, the Nation of Islam become the primary provider of services rather than, say, the Salvation Army. While I raised the distinction between a “faith-based” organization’s religious versus secular function, nobody seemed particularly concerned about this either. It’s been my experience that people have a hard time distinguishing the secular from the religious function when it’s their own religion. This is a distinction that can best be seen with outside eyes.
But Grits brought up a second, overarching point: Faith-based organizations are the ones doing this critical work, offering services to help former prisoners re-enter society. It is not a matter of favoring the religious over the secular. They are the only game in town in many places, and without them (and in the absence of secular organizations willing and capable of providing these services), we’re left with no one.
Do you argue against throwing a life-saver to a drowning man because it says “Love Jesus” on it? No. And I while it may be unfortunate the secular organizations either do not exist, or are not sufficiently prevalent, to handle this need, I appreciate the fact that faith-based organizations exist to fill this critical need. Filling in the need is far more important that than the nature of the organization’s core mission. In the hierarchy of needs, survival comes first. We should appreciate the fact that these faith-based organizations exist, for without them many prisoners would have no one who cared enough to help.
My hope is that this initiative will produce a sufficient drop in recidivism to make it clear to the public and politicians that putting resources toward the goals underlying this law is a far better allocation of resources than building more prisons. As long as the program produces positive results, it will provide the foundation to push for more resources, more providers and fewer human beings in prison to prove how tough Americans can be on each other. We can sort out the details later, but this is a good start and an important positive step.
I wouldn’t say I dismissed the concern about faith based involvement. It’s a legitimate concern. However I replied that, having worked in the past at ACLUTX, I was comfortable that there exist “pretty strong bright lines in the law regarding using public funds for proselytizing. For those who cross the line, that case law is there. But I don’t think you exclude religious NGOs from the process because they MIGHT proselytize.”
What’s more, if non-Christian religions are excluded I’m pretty sure that would get struck down too under existing precedents (though the Roberts Court could always take things a different direction). But in the scheme of things, that’s just a smaller risk than not addressing re-entry, and IMO probably a manageable one.
All correct, and I apologize if you felt that the post suggested otherwise. I was addressing the amalgamated commentary rather than repeating each individual comment, under the assumption that anyone interested in further details could use the link and read the specifics.
No offense taken, just clarifying. OTOH, it’s fair to say that when I was at ACLUTX I was much less likely to be concerned at religious involvement in the public sphere than some of my colleagues, and there were people employed there who I considered narrow-minded on the topic, while they’d have considered me too tolerant of gray areas on the church-state divide.
ACLU has a tendency to be defensive and shrill on church state stuff, but at this point with the case law mostly in their favor, IMO a different strategic tack is needed, for a time, to let public perceptions catch up to historic legal achievements. It’s okay to allow people to get comfortable with the changes that have already taken place, since no one but extremists presently think religion has been actually excluded from public life, and the laws now forbid use of funds for proselytizing. I see the Second Chance Act as a way for the religious community to show it’s matured and can operate within the limits of First Amendment propriety. And if not, the law is on the separationits’ side. best,
Dear Mr. Greenfield, et al,
There is something you can do to reduce recidivism without Congress’, faith based organizations proselytizing, community groups help or interference.
I am going to give you $67.5 Billion Dollars worth of opportunity for the “mutts”. You speak of Congress’s will to follow this thing up. Hows your will? Let’s see.
You will need three things to do this.
A bookkeeper.
A carpenter.
A check written out to The Benefactor Project NY or TX or any state you like in the amount of $250,000.00
You can even pay yourself back the $250k from the proceeds from the webcasts.
Now follow the advice on the website. [link deleted]
Tom Canavan
I’ve taken a look at your website, that you have chosen to promote on my blawg without my permission. I’m leaving the link intact, because it looks quite interesting. [Edit: I’ve changed my mind and deleted the link. This fellow is a nutjob.]
That said, the content of your post brands is bizarrely inappropriate. Unfortunately, anyone who might otherwise be inclined to consider your efforts (and many of the people who come here will be sympathetic to your cause) will think to themselves, the idea is good but this Tom Canavan is an ass. Is that what you hope to accomplish, brand Tom Canavan as an ass? You might want to reconsider your approach. Or perhaps this is an accurate reflection of who you are. Your call.
I understand why you feel that way but several things are wrong with our observations. I do not have a cause. I have nothing to promote. I have nothing to sell. I have shown you a way, without any further contact with me, how to help ex-offenders. If you follow what I lay out you will not have an opportunity to take advantage of the project. All bookkeeping has to stay in the public view is my only requirement. If you choose to do nothing with it well then that’s your call, now isn’t it? I read blogs like yours all the time and so far I haven’t been disappointed in my first impressions of them. Just a lot of Gee! somebody, in your case, “the government” should do something about this. And ain’t I a genius for pointing it out? Your grasp of the obvious is enthralling. blah, blah, blah. What you think of me is hardly the point is it? They are your ex-offenders if you can think of a better way to help them… Well?
Tom,
Perhaps I was unclear. Why would you come here out of the blue and be antagonistic? If we don’t agree with you and jump on your idea, then we’re all losers? Perhaps you have a brilliant idea, perhaps not. But the people here are mostly criminal defense lawyers and public defenders, and for you to suggest that they do nothing is not only offensive, but wrong.
Has it occurred to you that maybe your massive failure to convince anyone to follow your brilliant ideas is a product of your antagonism, or perhaps it’s becaue your ideas aren’t particulary brilliant. But playing the messiah while telling everyone that they are worthless unless they pray at your feet isn’t likely to win you any converts around here. Sorry if we’re just another blog that has rejected you, but my guess is that you’ve gotten very use to rejection. Bummer.
Beware The Permanent Underclass
A question was posed by W.W. Woodward in
This is very informative, as well as it is good news, for me personally.
Whoever thought of this, deserves kudos. My father was jailed about 10 years ago, and was only released late last year for cases of fraud, which was actually more of a case of rich vs. poor, and for which I don’t want to discuss further.
True to my father’s story, after he was released, he had fears that he may be branded as an ex-convict, and feared that he could not take on his old life.
I believe this Act is a testament of a life that he could actually live, of what he could actually do… despite having served a sentence.
All ex-prisoners deserve a chance to live again.
_______________________________
Emery Goldings
Alabama”>http://www.treatmentcenters.org/alabama/”>Alabama Treatment Centers
I hope this helps your father and the hundreds of thousand of Americans who want to build a good life but who have been deemd disposable human beings by those who, but for the grace of God, haven’t found themselves in a jam. Like I said, it’s a start. Americans need a major attitude adjustment to make a difference.
Will “Tough on Crime” Still be the Only Choice?
This is not intended as a partisan assessment, but rather one based on the hard reality that when it comes to criminal law issues, neither major party is willing to give up the appeal of being “tough on crime” to suck votes out of that vast group of “undecided” voters.
Mr.Greenfeld,
Recently, I went to visit an inmate in a Federal prison in a low security portion — inmates there called “cadre” and allow to move and worked in prison. I looked at the people in room and wonder why they are there ? Majority of those people were in their prime 25 – 35 years, apparently married with at least on child from 3 – 10 years old.
Even if this people comitted some legal infraction, they do not represent threat to society, especially if this was a one time – first time offence. Would not it be better for everyone if they released to their families with some kind of community/religious supevision ? I know that in this portion of prison about 125 inmates. So if even half of those, first time offenders, who spent at least 3 months in jail released TO THEIR FAILIES, at $50 per day per person it is 60 * $50 = $3000 PER DAY SAVINGS.
It is $3000 * 365 day = $ 1,095,000 per year savings. I think I saw number of 3,000 prison in this country. I do not know how many low security facilities, but assuming roughly that at least 1/3 is, it is 1000 prison * $1,095,000 =
$ 1.095 BILLION savings.
Here, it is money for the Second Chance Act.
Safer and Cheaper: Will It Fly?
The